About your Search

20121226
20130103
STATION
CSPAN 3
FBC 3
CSPAN2 2
LINKTV 2
WHUT (Howard University Television) 2
CNNW 1
MSNBCW 1
LANGUAGE
English 16
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)
to keep the troops home for good. >> the pentagon came out with new defense guidance in january 2012, which reflected the obama administration's understanding that budgets were going to be constrained first. and that second, the united states would not be likely to fight anymore wars like iraq or afghanistan in the near future, or the next decade or so. >> the point is that the american appetite for global intervention is going to decrease. there aren't many americans that want to keep going in afghanistan after 2014. there aren't many americans that are gonna want to go into iraq even given its importance in terms of global energy and oil. >> i think that reflects an understanding of where the country is. the u.s. whatever you think about how long troops should remain in afghanistan. i think everybody thinks that's enough with that kind of commitment of u.s. forces overseas. >> is our mission to eliminate taliban? it never was our mission. it is nation building? is it sending children to school? is it building sewer systems? is it going after al-qaeda? so, all those factors are comp
confirmation vote in the senator, the decision to float hagel for the pentagon is having the opposite effect. >> i think this will be a very tough confirmation process. >> a lot of republicans are asking hard questions and i don't think he's going to get many republican votes. i think it would be a challenging nomination. >> in another distress signal for the white house, the former vietnam vet and nebraska senator was unable to secure the backing of the number three democrat in the senate. >> that's his choice. i think once he makes it, his record will be studied carefully, but until that point, i think we're not going to know what's going to happen. >> can you support him? >> i'd have to study his record. i'm not going to comment until the president makes a nomination. >> wow. schumer's was the sign of this nomination's downward trajectory. after watching on tv, mike allen wrote he received an immediate e-mail from an astute republican official saying, pass the jam, he's toast. so is it game over for hagel? the white house certainly seemed to be backtracking this weekend. a senior official
. we had was within the pentagon. you would think that if you're sending more troops to afghanistan, those troops would go to places that were most critical, the places that the taliban were seeking to take over, the places that were most at risk, potentially a takeover of the country. instead, we wound up sending the first wave of new forces took part of the country with relatively few people. and i discovered the answer was simply tribal rivalries. not in afghanistan but in the pentagon. it turned out that the first wave of troops were u.s. marines. they wanted to bring their own helicopters, the own logistics. so they did was to work with u.s. army soldiers in the areas in and around the city of kandahar. it was this tale of our own services fighting with each other instead of fighting in common purpose against the enemy. and the stories go on. there was into fighting then the state department, within the u.s. agency for international development. and one other tale, i recount in some detail in the book, we had some real serious in fighting between president own national security
that the pentagon says. but is it? chris lawrence has a closer look. >> reporter: to hear the pentagon tell it -- >> sequestration, therefore if it were allowed to happen, will introduce senseless chaos. >> the fiscal cliff -- >> sequestration will have a chaotic effect on the force. >> reporter: is akin to armaggedon. >> i worry about being blindsided by a huge cut because they don't have the strength or courage or guts to do what they have to do. >> happy holidays. >> reporter: the cliff would cut $500 billion in defense spending, but spread out over the next ten years. would these cuts really be that bad? >> absolutely not. >> reporter: analyst ben freeman argues the pentagon can survive on a smaller budget. >> it will drop a little bit. but not catastrophic, doomsday, any sort of hyperbole. >> reporter: perhaps the navy would have to buy less expensive, less advanced fighter jets instead of the new f-35. or the pentagon would have to cut the number of soldiers and marines back to the numbers before 9/11. >> sequestration would risk hollowing out our force. >> reporter: pentagon official
the comfort of the north lawn reporting on the pentagon and the white house and the troops upsurge numbers and how this became a project that's really became attached to. lou: you focus on this particular battle, you talk with nearly 225 individuals. how long did that take? >> they range from generals, private, widows, couple insurgents, one of whom i interviewed by skype. it was a big project that every time i thought i wasev done, tak to smitty, i mean ultimately i just had to stop because there was never going to be a time where i had talked to everybody. lou: you are pursuing one of the toughest explanations, that is how those men can be caught ate that outpost and be the target to be outnumbered so outrageously and incapable of being protected. this is how it started. how is in hospi in the hospitaly newborn son, jack. he was a day-old, out of the corner of my eye i saw the story about the outpost and never heard of combat outpost. coverage along the lines of what would anybody put outpost there? it became a mystery that i needed to solve. why woultd we put our troops in such a vulner
the wall street journal, or the pentagon indicated they wanted to maintain 6000 to 15th thousand u.s. troops following 2014. that is the issue under discussion now. there's approximately around 340 0,000 afghan security forces in place, including the police. the pentagon recently indicated i don't believe there was a major unit capable of operating independently from nato support. there was some manipulation of the metrics they were using where the things appear to be making more progress than perhaps they were. that came out in a white paper. what will be the long term success or failure of the afghan national security forces is yet to be determined. they need about $4.1 billion a year to continue at that level, which is more than the entire government revenues in afghanistan. so it's gone to take a long-term commitment of foreign powers to maintain that size of armed forces. the afghans have proven that they are excellent fighters. the question is will they be excellent soldiers for the government of afghanistan? host: one other question, how stable do you think the karzai govern
pentagon budget issues coming up. so there's some talk about him wanting to hang on and try to manage the budget issues that are going to hit the pentagon over the next few months. host: we're taking your calls with david jackson, the white house reporter for u.s.a. today. first up is doug from oklahoma on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. i had a question about geithner. hadn't he said something earlier about wanting to leave? guest: that's correct. host: around the inauguration was the quote. host: how would you feel about geithner leaving? do you want him to go as a democrat? caller: that's a good question. no. no. guest: the caller is right. geithner has said publicly he wants to leave around the nomination. but with the uncertainty, i don't think the administration would want him to leave as long as these issues are hanging. so we get a fiscal cliff this deal and i think he's going to be gone by the end of the month but i think it's kind of up t in the air. host: says a contender for his job would be jack lew. guest: that's the betting money. is his job if
. the pentagon says there have been at least 154 suicides among active-duty troops through last thursday. a rate of nearly one each day. >> every day in this country, 18 veterans are committing suicide. 17% of the individuals in combat in afghanistan -- my brothers and sisters -- are on psychotropic medication. >> president obama announces the ministers and most of deporting hundreds of thousands of undocumented you whose parents brought them to the nine states. >> these were young people who studied in our schools, play in our neighborhoods, they are friends with our kids. they pledge allegiance to our flag. they are americans in their heart, in their minds, in every single way but one, on paper. now let's be clear, this is not amnesty, this is not immunity. this is not a path to citizenship. it is not a permanent fix. this is a temporary stopgap measure. >> biking as far redefined immigrants might movement in this country. we are taking a lead now. now we are unstoppable. i think our responsibilities to our community, to our parents, to the adults, is to continue that work, to look for permane
in chicago, the largest building outside the pelt gone in the country -- pentagon in the country. and he bought, you know, block after block in new york. i don't think in philadelphia. he didn't get this far. he was concentrated in new york and chicago and westchester and albany. he was of not yet where he wanted to be. and he demanded much from roosevelt, and roosevelt gave it to him. and roosevelt named him the first ambassador, the first irish catholic ambassador to the court of st. james. he became the ambassador to great britain. and it was one of the worst decisions roosevelt ever made. [laughter] he knew but somehow believed he could keep kennedy in check, but he couldn't. he copp. he couldn't. kennedy was two men. when he talked to his children, he was a cheerleader, he was an optimist. but in his relationship to the world around him and to the 20th century, he was a cassandra. having made his pile of money, he was convinced that it was going to be taken from him. he was convinced that democracy and capitalism would be taken from the united states. if the united states entered th
to libya were killed. the report also finds fault with the pentagon and the white house. chief intelligence correspondent catherine herridge live with that from washington. is this report different from the one that the state department investigation group put out, catherine? >> reporter: it is, jon. thank you and good morning. this congressional investigation also faults the pentagon for having no effective evacuation plan and faults the white house including president obama for his inconsistent statements about whether benghazi was a terrorist attack given the intelligence suggested within hours that an al-qaida affiliate was involved on september 11th. it sites mr. obama a's interview with 60 minutes on september 12th as evidence of inconsistent statements. he states it's too early to know exactly how this came about, what group was involved. obviously it was an attack on americans and we will be working with the libyan government to make sure we bring these folks to justice one way or the other. the president said in an interview over the weekend that there were quote, huge problems and
-the-board spending cuts set to start striking the pentagon and domestic agencies this week. so what do you think about the sequester? does it just kind of -- i don't want to use this phrase, but kick the can down the road? want after two months? >> we probably do this again. i'm not really sure why it's there. i'm not -- i don't understand who it's there to keep happy, who asked for the sequester delay. if it was the democrats, that's one thing, if it was the republicans, that's another. the house had a good plan to replace those sequester cuts with other, better cuts. so the sequester's going to be a big problem over here for those of us who are interested in reducing spending. heather: so i want to talk about whether this will, in fact, come up in the house today when they convene, i think it is noon unless that's changed. the house has informally operated under the hastert rule. basically, house gopers similarly will -- simply will not bring up a bill that does not have the majority party in the favor. even if it could pass with a colegislation of some of the members -- coalition of some of t
that i do not view this as the fall of the pentagon, but rather, an indication that the department of defense has insufficient assets to respond to attacks at this time -- of this type. let me comment on the administration's response to the attacks. this was so obviously a terrorist attack that i remain perplexed that the administration's officials gave such conflicting responses to questions from reporters about whether or not it was a terrorist attack. this was clearly not a peaceful protest that somehow got out of hand and evolved into a violent attack. instead, it clearly was a terrorist attack. and this, unfortunately, has been typical of what the committee has found over the last few years in our investigations of radical islamic extremism and the threat of the perversion of a peaceful religion practiced by the vast majority of muslims. the threat of the perversion of that etiology to attack our country remains a great threat. and yet, the administration repeatedly has refused to name the threat that we have faced. it was evident in the department of all land security -- home
Search Results 0 to 15 of about 16 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)